Friday, March 07, 2014

[note: this is an adult article about sexual morality, and contains somewhat graphic -- though not vulgar -- descriptions, due to the particular subject matter. On that basis, it may be considered "PG-13"]

* * * * *

The constant tradition of the Catholic Church has been to prohibit artificial contraception. In this we seem to be almost alone today. Yet, historically speaking, all Christian groups opposed contraception altogether until the Anglicans decided in 1930 to allow it for “hard cases” (how sadly familiar that reasoning sounds!).

It's often thought that the Catholic reasoning behind the prohibition stems from a sort of “anti-sex” or “anti-pleasure” or prudish motivation. The Catholic Church supposedly doesn't “like” sex, so it requires priests and nuns to be celibate, and seeks to take as much pleasure as possible out of the wondrous divine gift of sexuality. This is untrue, but suffice it for now to say that the relevant biblical arguments have been used by Protestants as well, and stand on their own.

This scriptural basis is perhaps seen most clearly in the passage concerning the sin of Onan (Genesis 38:9-10, RSV):

. . . when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. [10] And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

The reasoning often used to overcome the force of the passage is to say that Onan was punished by God (with death) for disobeying the “levirate law,” whereby a brother of a dead husband was to take his sister-in-law as his wife and have children with her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

But that can’t apply in this case (or any other) because the law allows the brother to refuse and recommends that the one who does so suffer only public humiliation. Thus we find in Deuteronomy 25:9 that a sister-in-law so refused should “spit in his face,” but there is no mention of any wrath from God , let alone the death penalty.

Moreover, the passage which teaches about the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) is directly from God, as part of the covenant and the Law received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, and proclaimed to all of Israel (see Deuteronomy 5:1-5; 29:1, 12). God Himself did not say that the punishment for disobeying the levirate law was death (in the place where it would be expected if it were true).

If refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment issued by his fellows, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause. This was the “withdrawal method,” a form of contraception (probably the one most used throughout history, because it requires no devices or potions). Therefore, Onan was killed for doing that, which in turn means (we can reasonably conclude!) that God didn’t approve of it.

The levirate law itself confirms the central point on which the moral objection to contraception is based: the evil of separating sex from procreation. It is precisely because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, that the levirate law was present in the first place. If one married, they were to have sexual relations, which was (foremost) for the purpose of having children.

If a husband died with no children, it was so important to continue his name with offspring that God commanded the man’s brother to take his wife after he died. But Onan tried to separate sex from procreation. He wanted all the pleasure but not the responsibility of perpetuating his brother’s family. He possessed the “contraceptive mentality” which is rampant today, even (sadly) among otherwise traditional, committed Christians.

Fr. Brian Harrison wrote an excellent Internet article (“The Sin of Onan Revisited,” Nov. 1996), in which he examined the passage in great exegetical depth, with incorporation of pertinent cross-texting. He states:

If simple refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother were, according to Genesis 38, Onan's only offence, it seems extremely unlikely that the text would have spelt out the crass physical details of his contraceptive act (cf. v. 9). The delicacy and modesty of devout ancient Hebrews in referring to morally upright sexual activity helps us to see this. As is well-known, Scripture always refers to licit (married) intercourse only in an oblique way: "going in to" one's wife, (i.e., entering her tent or bedchamber, cf. vv. 8 and 9 in the Genesis text cited above, as well as Gen. 6:4; II Sam. 16:22; I Chron. 23:7) or "knowing" one's spouse (e.g., Gen. 4:17; Luke 1:34). When the language becomes somewhat more explicit - "lying with" someone, or "uncovering [his/her] nakedness" - the reference is without exception to sinful, shameful sexual acts. And apart from the verse we are considering, the Bible's only fully explicit mention of a genital act (the voluntary emission of seed) is in a prophetical and allegorical context wherein Israel's infidelity to Yahweh is being denounced scathingly in terms of the shameless lust of a harlot (Ez. 23:20). . . .

The evil of the contraceptive act stems from its willful, unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. It violates natural law. Onan tried the “middle way” (and the “modern way”) of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and it's why God killed him.

Obviously, God is not immediately punishing or judging in this fashion today (or if so, only in the very rarest of cases), but the point of the Old Testament was to make clear what was right and wrong, and to punish evil swiftly and decisively. Therefore, we learn from this passage that contraception is quite gravely sinful and forbidden; and this general principle of morality didn't change with the arrival of the new covenant and Christianity.

Jerome said it was the levirate obligation that was the sin and Augustine said it was coitus interruptus. I believe they were both incorrect....Jerome because the later punishment was light for that offense as you noted; Augustine because the later law doesn't mention any great punishment for coitus interruptus which might...might be at issue in Leviticus 15:16-18 but compare the Douay Rheims to the NAB. The former leans toward coitus interruptus being punished by being unclean til evening and the seed is to land not on dirt but on leather or cloth.The NAB has verse 18 as a separate act on perhaps another day while the DR which generally follows the Vulgate, has all three verses involved in one act of two people. If it wasn't either sin mentioned by the two Fathers what was it? Are any of you aware that God was trying to get Christ's next ancestor out of these three sons of Judah because God willed Christ to come from the House of Judah which was Judah and his three sons. God had to kill any son then that didn't honor the levirate obligation not because it was so important but because in this one case...honoring it was critical to Christ coming from the House of Judah. God kills both Er and Onan for thus risking the non appearance of Christ. Check the Bible for intimate killings by God. They are not for sex (David was not killed...his son was for several sins and sacrilege us in there because Uriah had become sacred to God by refusing to leave the ark...unlike the 72 descendants of Jeconiah whom God killed for refusing to greet the ark) but God kills for sacrilege even when unintended as in Uzzah's case when he tried to prevent the ark from falling. NT...when us the one time Christ gets violent? Sex? No....the money changers were defiling and taking the space reserved for the gentile prayer. Who does God intimately kill in Acts..,Ananias and Saphirra for lying to the Holy Spirit ( chap.5) and Herod for letting the people call him god ( chap.12). I know this is new to you Dave but think on these things as time goes by. No one changes overnight on the internet. Review all intimate not mass killings by God in the Bible....they are for sacrilege only. Jerome and other saints were against contraception without needing Augustine's take on Onan. God kills Achan for stealing the gold of Jericho set aside to be dedicated to God ; kills the sons of Heli for using the priesthood to get carnal things for themselves; kills Dathan and Abiram for revolting against Moses; kills by bears the 42 children who mocked a known prophet, Eliseus; has Jehu kill the House of Ahab and Jezebel for persecuting the real prophets. Onan whether wittingly or unwittingly was risking the non appearance of Christ whose ancestor became the child from Tamar's seduction of Judah who thought he was fornicating with a whore. God killed neither Tamar for incest nor Judah for whoring...killed neither one.

And Bill has a very good question- 'if it wasn't coitus interruptus or levirate obligation, what sin was it?'

This is where I insist that it could be numerous other sins. Sins that I outline in my comments on Steve Hays recent response.

Those sins include abusing his sister-in-law, abusing a genetic privilege and defrauding other suitors. But first and foremost it could be for dishonoring his father! He lied to his father and merely lied with his sister-in-law. The wasting of his seed was the fulfillment of that lie- just as the eating of the forbidden fruit was the fulfillment of original sin. Adam and Eve dishonored their Father in the garden. Onan dishonored his father in a somewhat different garden of delights.Again, the fruit was not the issue. It was not Onan's dishonoring of his sperm. It was Onan's contemptuous spitting on his fathers seed (not unlike Ham's metaphoric spitting on his fathers nudity). Is this not enough to warrant capital punishment? Do we take the fifth commandment so lightly 'that our days may be long upon this earth'? -Exodus 20:12

Judah then wished Onan, as the brother-in-law, to marry the childless widow of his deceased brother, and raise up seed, i.e., a family, for him. But as he knew that the first-born son would not be the founder of his own family, but would perpetuate the family of the deceased and receive his inheritance, he prevented conception when consummating the marriage by spilling the semen. ארצה שׁחת, “destroyed to the ground (i.e., let it fall upon the ground), so as not to give seed to his brother” (נתן for תּת only here and Numbers 20:21). This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death.

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.

(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21)

John Calvin, in his Commentary on Genesis is no less vehemently opposed to the practice:

***

I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

The article on Onan in The New Bible Dictionary written by the editor, J. D. Douglas, states:

"Onan . . . took steps to avoid a full consummation of the union, thus displeasing the Lord, who slew him."

(p. 910)

Douglas appears to contend that Onan was killed for the contraceptive act, not disobedience to the levirate law. If so, his opinion contradicts the view expressed in the other article by J.S. Wright and J.A. Thompson. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary concurs:

". . . whenever Onan and Tamar had intercourse he would spill his sperm on the ground to prevent her from conceiving; for this the Lord slew him.

"Onan’s tactic of withdrawing before ejaculation . . . costs him his life."

(pp. 781, 653)

In its article on “Levirate Law,” we are also informed that “the brother had the option of refusing to take his sister-in-law in levirate marriage (p. 652).

Matthew Henry decries “the great abuse of his own body” and “sins that dishonour the body and defile it” which “are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections.” John Wesley actually quotes Henry, adds that Onan was abusing his wife, and concludes with this powerful condemnation:

"Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord -- And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls."

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Clement of Alexandria

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).

Council of Nicaea I

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1 [A.D. 325]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

Dave, What you proved is that writers within western civilization followed Augustine ( many at least) on Onan....not that any of them make sense. Aquinas followed him on several sex related issues that the Church rejects now from both men. Keep in mind that Augustine had wounds from years of sexual sin which wounds do not necessarily vanish with forgiveness of sin. No.1...Aquinas copied Augustine on the venial sin nature of asking for the debt when procreation is not willed...rejected by the Church in its acceptance in 1853 of using the non fertile periods with serious reasons ( "grave" is from an Pius XII address..."serious" is from Humanae Vitae). No.2...Aquinas copied Augustine on Mary contracting original sin but being cleansed of it prior to birth...a sexual error again, he said Mary contracted it because it is transmitted by pleasurable concupiscence...later Trent and the present catechism said it is transmitted by propagation not concupiscence and No.3...both men were corrected by the encyclical on the Immaculate Conception on Mary contracting it at all. For anorher sexual reason...his past arguing with Monica, Augustine misinterpreted Christ's words to Mary at Cana at the wine request as negative in the sense of reluctance coupled with putting her in her place. But Mary heard an immediate yes and so instructed the servants. The result is that 95% of Bible translations in English have Christ talking rude to Mary in Jn.2:4 whereas only the Vulgate, Young's Literal, and the Douay Rheims have His non rude real literal words...." what to me and to thee" a rare biblical idiom used by David to Abishai, Eliseus to the three kings IN A PRESAGE OF THE CANA MIRACLE ( water appears red to the Moabites) and a demon uses it in talking to Christ respectfully and fearfully. So I know well that many followed Augustine. I'm glad Miguel Miguens, a tiny Catholic author finally saw through the Cana mistake and when you hear the awful NAB sense for sense translation in the Mass, remember the literal Vulgate instead. Christ was actually reassuring Mary that his hour to be arrested was not near if he did the water to wine miracle there that night. Mary was worried that if she forced Him into a miracle...His and her passion would not be far off. Christ reassured her...with the words from the water blood miracle of 2 Kings..,"What to me and to thee".... Eliseus's words to the three kings.

Mark Allen, The Church actually rejects some of your quotes now when She accepted the use of the non fertile periods.Some early saints ingested the Stoic position that sex is only virtuous during willed procreation. If you are perspicacious, you can find which lines in your quotes actually came from the late Stoics. Here for example is Musonius Rufus:Lecture XII-2: " Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage." The Church departed from that Stoic position that is found in the early saints when it affirmed the use of the non fertile periods for serious reasons. I laugh when I see priests like Fr. Hardon using your list because it's anachronistic and Humanae Vitae rejects several of your saints WHEN THEY ARE quoting the Stoics...who by the way...affirmed infanticide and in some cases fathers executing preteens.

Dave...ps.... the nab is not all awful but it is at jn2:4. the Douay Rheims translated Eliseus' words to the three kings incorrectly so one needs the vulgate to see Eliseus using the " what to me and to you".... at that spot which is critical because it seems that Christ and Mary had discussed the miraculous water in 2 Kings looking like blood in conjunction with Eliseus using the idiom. At Cana Christ was actually reassuring Mary He would not be arrested quickly as a "worker of wonders" with the idiom from the water to blood event of .2 Kings.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I was not aware of such changes made by the Church. Have to admit, I'm always learning something new and I really do appreciate you providing feedback, as it gives me something to go back and research.One of the beauties of dialogue.

What an excellent encouragement for early marriage! As soon as a boy begins to orgasm, even before he emits semen, he becomes subject to the temptation to seek climax. What better honoring of apostle Paul's command, "To avoid fornication (all sexual sin), let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." And, "I say therefore to the unmarried..., it is good for them to abide even as I (sexually continent). But if they cannot contain [their sexual urges], let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn [with sexual passion].Even though the young unmarried boys' sexual tension will automatically discharge periodically, is it not better that their semen all go into their wives?Should not the girls marry when their sexual characteristics begin to develop, before they cast their first unfertilized egg out? They likewise will benefit from what is contemptuously called "child marriage." The ancients considered a girl a woman when she had her first menstrual discharge at the latest, and more when she began to grow breasts and pubic hair. A boy was considered a man when he first emitted semen, that is, when he first demonstrated his ability to impregnate a girl.Sure would avoid a lot of fornication, a scourge of delayed marriage and extended childhood.

The problem here is that in ancient times, puberty came later, and marriage was earlier. So there wasn't an extended period of sexual tension, post-puberty and pre-marriage.

But physical maturity is not the same as emotional maturity. I believe it's quite possible to be chaste before marriage, even in our crazy post sexual revolution times, where sex is the idol and Golden Calf of multiple millions of people.

Millions have in fact done it. It's entirely possible, with proper education and avoidance of certain situations and influences.

The secular myth is that it is impossible to do. But the difficult thing is not necessarily impossible. With God's grace all things are possible, and we can do all things through Him Who strengthens us.

The Christian either takes God at His word and believes Him, or does not. I believe, because I have seen the power and the results in my own life and that of many other serious Christians.

We're not just animals, who have no sexual control. We are intelligent, rational, spiritual beings, who can control our lives, including avoiding sin, by God's grace, insofar as we allow Him to operate in us, and follow His will.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).